Hacker News Reader

Comment by Workaccount2 | Hacker News Reader

You got the analogy backwards:

Youtube is riding a bicycle.

Youtube gets sick of the sticks getting caught up in its wheels.

Youtube removes the sticks.

If you adblock youtube, you just cost them money. Dead weight. How can people be so confused about how youtube works? It's a platform to sell ad-space to advertisers. If you are not viewing ads (or paying premium) you are just a stick in the wheels of the platform.

Its like sneaking into the backdoor of a buffet, eating for free, then telling the place they are going to fail when they lock the door. Even worse, you didn't even know you were using the backdoor, you thought it was the front.

View on HN

If we’re really doing analogies: Youtube is a bit more like living in a small town that has a few buffets, but 90% of dishes (especially the more niche cuisines you really like) are only available at a single one.

That buffet frustratingly does not just accept payment per meal – you get a choice between either paying for a monthly subscription that also includes access to a fancy gym and is accordingly quite expensive (and you might already have another gym subscription you like!), or you can eat for free, but the waiters force you to watch several videos of their pets and children between each course.

But the industry standard for content delivery is a monthly sub. Sure I'd love it if every content provider offered an ala carte option. But that's an industry wide complaint, not specific to youtube.

Yes, but not bundled with a music subscription, the market value of which is something like $10-$11/month. That would be more than half of the Youtube subscription fee, and many people have an existing music streaming service they’re happy with!

No, you got the analogy backwards:

YouTube is running a bicycle track.

YouTube keeps throwing sticks in people's wheels.

People put stick shields on their wheels.

YouTube makes heavy magnets that pull people's stick shields and blames stick shields for people's bikes being slower.

If you're serving content on the internet, and I download some of that content, it is completely up to me what I do with it on my machine. Google may screech "nooo you can't play downloaded videos if you don't play downloaded ads first", but that's complete bullcrap since Google can't tell me what I can and cannot do with my computer.

If Google doesn't like what I do with the content I download from their YouTube servers, Google can choose to make YouTube subscription-only. Yet they never did. Go figure. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Those videos are not on your computer though? They are not your videos...

> Those videos are not on your computer though?

Is that a question? As long as my screen is not connected to Google's servers through a 100 mile long HDMI cable, the videos have to be downloaded to my machine before they can be played on my screen.

> They are not your videos...

Google made them available to me through a publicly accessible website.

>Is that a question? As long as my screen is not connected to Google's servers through a 100 mile long HDMI cable

...but your computer is in fact connected to google's servers through a 100 mile long cable. Maybe not an HDMI cable, but maybe that is key to your argument somehow?

>Google made them available to me through a publicly accessible website.

Cafes are also publicly accessible, that doesn't mean the coffee is free. If a cafe gives out coffee for watching an ad, you still have to watch the ad to get the coffee. Just because you found a way to skip the ad watch, doesn't mean you are entitled to the coffee at the "publicly accessible" cafe...

> Maybe not an HDMI cable, but maybe that is key to your argument somehow?

Yes, because the file has to be downloaded on my computer. Once it's on my computer, it's no longer Google's business what I do with it. What's your issue with this argument, exactly?

> Cafes are also publicly accessible, that doesn't mean the coffee is free.

Not a good analogy, downloading content from a publicly accessible server is free, while getting coffee is not free.

A better one would be that a cafe is giving away free coffee with the condition that you also take their advertisement pamphlet. Once the coffee and pamphlet is in my possesion, it is no longer cafe's business what I do with it - I have complete freedom to throw the pamphlet away and enjoy the coffee.

You are taking the file from google. Google has a system in place to gate that file with an ad view(s). You are circumventing that system. It costs google money to send you that file. It cost the creators money to generate that file. You are compensating neither and instead talking about how the file is yours once you circumvent compensation for it.

Please, you cannot be this dense.

Actually, I'm asking Google to serve me a file via a GET request. The response they send back includes the content along with an ad. Google would prefer I watch the ad but since the bits are on my computer and Google has no say in how I operate my computer, which bits I read, or how I allocate my time their wishes don't really matter after they've sent me the bits I care about.

Google could just say "no" and not send me any content at all. I'm not "taking" anything though.

> Google has a system in place to gate that file with an ad view(s). You are circumventing that system.

No, Google has a system in place to serve the video with ads. Google does not, and cannot, control what I do on my computer. Google could control what I can download, e.g. through authorization mechanisms for enforcing subscription, but they don't. They run a web server which serves content for free, and they would like me to play ads on my computer before playing the content. But what they would like is completely irrelevant to the discussion - their wishes aren't moral laws.

> Please, you cannot be this dense.

Right back at you.

>Google has a system in place to gate that file with an ad view

This may be their intention, but, no, they don't gate files with ad views. They allow you to start downlaoding the ad and the file at the same time. I am not circumventing a "system to gate files with ad views" because that is not the system that they have.

If this is the analogy, why doesn't Google try something like protecting from sticks in the first place? For example, they could lock all of YouTube behind a login & paywall.

It seems like YouTube is attempting to FORCE people to adhere to its desired business model. If ad-supported video playback is not economically viable, then maybe it's time for a new model to be born? There is no obligation for me to pick up the stick and hit myself with it because Google says I should. I downloaded a bunch of bits that Google sent to my computer, and then I read the bits I cared about. That's how every webpage has worked in my experience.

They offer you a direct payment option which would quite well for not seeing ads while still supporting the people who make the videos which are so important to you.

And yet it's optional and they also keep sending me the same videos for free along with ads.

I could opt to close my eyes and ears for every ad they send instead and it would have the same effect at the cost of my personal time. Ad blockers are just time shifting Tivos in disguise. Google has no say in how I spend my time interacting with the bits they already sent to my computer.

Advertisers know you don’t always watch, but they price in the odds that the ad will catch your eye and pay.

Ad blockers drive those odds to zero, so the advertisers won’t pay.

Personally, I like paying people who make things I enjoy, but if you feel you’re entitled to their work without paying for it, just be honest about it and be you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com